Went to a good website this morning:


anyone who is having difficulty on deciding should check this out or even if you have decided. Set aside your views of the personality of the man or his spouse,(this country is not ruled by just one person) and just look at where they stand on the major issues for or against.

This is a non-partisan site.

Vote for Kerry.

The preceding was not paid for nor endorsed by the Kerry campaign....


  • 12 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • There was a site four years ago where you answered a series of questions and it calculated for you which candidate most closely matched you opinions. Does anyone remember it? Know if the site is still out there? The difference between that one and this one - it was interactive.
  • MSN had that same type of site active just a few months ago. I took the quiz and it said I was hopelessly undecided and if I voted it would devalue the gene pool. x;-)
  • Here's a website to check out where you can answer questions and it'll match you up with a candidate.


  • That was interesting, I just did it. Thanks. Of course the site doesn't really measure intangibles such as how each candidate would solve a problem.
  • The presidentmatch.com site was interesting. Of course, it told me what I already knew. Vote for Bush
  • I am surprised! I was sure as I was answering those questions that I appeared to be agreeing with Kerry more than Bush. It came out just marginally for Bush. Must be the ranking of issues with security as foremost that put it over the top. That was a very interesting exercise.
  • Interesting site. But I'm not sure how nonpartisan it is. For example, it says Bush is strongly for privatizing SS. Bush has said he is in favor of allowing a choice - investing your money as you wish a la 401(k), or maintaining your benefits as is. This site has a Kerry slant on the issue. The tax cuts section is definitely worded with a Kerry slant.

    But, a little analysis reveals...of all the issues listed Kerry was only *somewhat* for or against 19, Bush was *somewhat* for or against 7. It has been said Bush has stong convictions and Kerry doesn't and waffles. This site seems to support that. Vote Kerry if you are ambivalent.

    Nader doesn't really matter. But, he did have 10 issues with no opinion as opposed to only 2 each for Bush and Kerry. So, if you have no opinion or don't care, vote Nader.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-19-04 AT 11:29AM (CST)[/font][br][br]:-? When it comes to guns, how can someone strongly oppose safety devices on all new guns, or strongly oppose a safety class and license before purchase, or strongly oppose lawsuits against gun manufacturers or somewhat oppose background checks on gun show purchases? I'm all for owning a gun (believe it or not), but I'm for responsibility with it too. Is the text misleading or is it accurate?

    I know it's not a direct analogy, but it seems as though owning a car has more hoops to jump through then owning a gun. I google'd the statistics quick and in 2003 there were 42,643 vehicle related deaths (NHTSA statistic) and in 2001 (couldn't find anything more recent) there were 29,573 gun related deaths (CDC statistic) - both numbers are high. With cars, there are mandatory age requirements, driving instruction classes, tests at the DMV (driven and written), vision acuity, license requirements, insurance requirements, tabs, license fees/taxes, etc - and that's just for the owners. Manufacturers have to go through the gov. in regards to standard emissions, safety features, etc. And, can't folks still sue the manufacturers if they make a bad car or bad tires? Do the same 'hoops' exist for owning guns?

  • What the NRA and people like Bush and me are opposed to are the encroaching CONTROLS of the gun control group. A little here, a little there, a gun or two here, a style or two there, a lock here, a lock-out there, a check here, a restriction and confiscation there. Nobody is against a criminal background check. It's the law today, as we speak. What conservatives are opposed to is encroachment, slow and steady. We have the good sense to see it approaching, therefore we resist it every chance we get. Who would think a little 80 cent lock on a pistol would whip anyone into a frenzy? The problem is what's next.

    If you study many of society's control-freak laws today, you will notice that they all had one thing in common....a little here, a little there, until, whammo!

    John Kerry has stated he is for public disclosure and recording of every weapon owned and in some cases that the government would be able to seize those weapons. That's frightening. It's very simplistic to think of the issue as one of 'background checks' or 'a little blue plastic lock on a new glock'.

    And it is friggin' insane to think that the legal system should allow me to sue Winchester if some crack head with a model 12, sixteen gauge blows my wife away with it. That's the John Edwards theory of personal enrichment.
  • "John Kerry has stated he is for public disclosure and recording of every weapon owned and in some cases that the government would be able to seize those weapons. That's frightening."

    That is definetly not frightening to me! People WITH guns is FRIGHTENING to me. I'll never understand the fascination with guns, why do you need them? I've lived on my own since I was 17 (with just a couple of brief marriages...just 2!) and I have never felt that I needed nor wanted a gun to protect myself and I'm a petite woman. How anyone could go out and hunt a poor defenseless animal with a gun is beyond me, go to the grocery store and buy meat you don't have to hunt. Shooting animals for sport? that is very scary not sporty. If you want to hunt for sport give the animal a chance use a bow and arrow if you must.
  • I see nothing inconsistent with favoring safety devices, background checks, classes etc, with opposing suing gun manufacturers for the deliberate, intentional misues of their product. It's just stupid to let an idiot sue the lawn mower mfgr when he picks it up to trim a hedge and drops it on his gonads or to sue GM when someone deliberately runs someone down in the crosswalk. How can anyone rationally, reasonably favor that? The liberal/socially legislative courts are completely out of control. Now, not only can you vote a provisional ballot when you claim to be registered but the registration list doesn't show that to be true, which the law intended - and rightfully so - but you can vote in a district in which you cannot otherwise vote, no matter you may be voting for the wrong congressman/councilman/etc. In one case, your entire vote is appropriately counted if you have registered but the list has not caught up; in the other your ballot must be parceled to exclude votes for positions you cannot, mistake or not, otherwise vote. In the first case, the error is the government's and as a result the voter should not be penalized; in the second the error is the failure of the voter to sufficiently inform himself and shouldn't he be responsible? I can see the ACLU and other protest groups sending voters deliberately to wrong precints by the thousands in an effort to disrupt, delay, and confuse the outcome. We may not know the winner(s) for months!
  • Tried to keep up with you Shadowfax, but you lost me when you started discussing voting and ballots. x:-) I agree with you on several points you made prior, however, about the lawsuits and I now have a better understanding from Don on the crux of the matter between gun owners and giving an inch when it comes to regulation. Thank you both for your insight - it's nice to see the other point of view and I don't think I've seen it as clearly before each of your responses.
Sign In or Register to comment.